The Storm in the East Tournament - Round 1

[iluvmy88]

@iluvmy88

The issue at hand, and the main topic of conversation is not your integrity but at how both you and your opponent chose to end the game.

i did not choose surrender my opponent did. which means the only one who really lost here is my opponent. even if the game had been carried further your talking maybe another 50pts. and as a realistic game if you suffer greater than 50% casualties and loose all but 2 armor (reinforcements) you would irl surrender or retreat. its just semantics. the argument that the game did not score right is incorrect. as i stated he only physically held 1 VP at the end of the game which i could have easily overrun with the 3/1 tank odds he was against. he thus have not had a chance to make friendly casualties < 50% true or enemy casualties > 50% = true so it would have really been a waste of time.

as far as my integrity we have a saying in the army, if it doesn't apply let it fly. if you don't feel you insulted me i'm not talking to you.

[iluvmy88]

Here is the only way to fix this, the moderator has to be sent the final battle save and password at the end of the game to see where each opponent stands and make any judgment he sees fit. if surrender was justified then a surrender can be awarded. the reason for this is i or anyone else cannot control when your opponent surrenders so in the end your only going to be screwing the winner.

[A Canadian Cat]

So, to be clear when you surrender you still get points for causing casualties. The game does *not* give up every point to the victor. What they get is all the objectives and are considered to have caused 100% causalities to the surrendering side. Their own casualties still count towards any friendly threshold or points for the surrendering side. In this case there were precious few casualties on the victor's side, hence the score.

If the battle had gone on longer and his opponent had some how managed to cause some causalities then they would have had more points but from the sounds of it @iluvmy88 did really well and his opponent did poorly.

This kind of tournament is going to have growing pains and lets face it we have not run many tournaments here so lets consider the feedback we want to give towards the process but not try and diminish a particular game result. Whether that was intended or not I suggest we take it as unintentional and move on. At the end I am sure Raz would like to have feedback on the tournament design and a discussion about surrendering would certainly be warranted at that time. For now we all knew the rules going in and we should play this out.

[iluvmy88]

Thank you Canadian cat. sorry if i caused unrest i was quite until something hit a nerve =D.

[H]

Here is the only way to fix this, the moderator has to be sent the final battle save and password at the end of the game to see where each opponent stands and make any judgment he sees fit. if surrender was justified then a surrender can be awarded. the reason for this is i or anyone else cannot control when your opponent surrenders so in the end your only going to be screwing the winner.

Cease fires aren't the most even handed way either to calculate points either if someone quits - I agree with you on that one unless the person who has to agree to the cease fire keeps playing as long as they want, like I believe Floki suggested.

The only real way to actually fix this is not to allow any surrendering in this tourney at all - all games must be played through to conclusion. In a point based tourney based on losses and obj's taken, the surrender option disregards those parameters, and therefore shouldn't be allowed. In a points based tourney, given the way the games scores surrenders, if someone wants to surrender, then they are disqualified from the tourney and the game is replayed with another opponent that won't quit.

Not sure how the winner is getting screwed though, unless you think that the recipient of the surrender should get all the points just because the other guy gave up, and therefore the winner is somehow being cheated. Your opponent should never have been allowed to quit - in a surrender scenario the GAME gives the winner points that aren't necessarily earned, the loser gets none, when some might have been earned, and the winner doesn't lose any for casualties, whether it be 1 in your case, or more. And possession of objectives points all go to the winner regardless of who actually took them - just because you took all but one here isn't relevant.

Again - this isn't about your game and the decisiveness of your victory up to the point he quit. Well done, sir!! However, if you played through to a conclusion and if the usual guidelines of points awarded for casualties and obj. were applied, the odds of you getting all the points and him getting none are virtually nil, unless he does nothing and just keeps advancing turns - hell, even then guys with no orders shoot.

This is once again and FINALLY about points being given out randomly by the game system with no actual combat results considered in a surrender scenario - how close your particular game was to these actual point totals has nothing to do with the issue I am speaking to - your game isn't relative to the point I am making here.

All I am addressing is the inequity of awarding all the points to one person via the surrender option in ANY game, regardless of the combat that occurred - that's it.

Congrats on your victory - the way the game awards points for a surrender isn't your problem. I'm glad this came up as a topic - but I'm sorry you feel like the winner gets screwed by getting all the points. I think the term getting screwed is a bit harsh, but the other three guys in your group are now going to have to deal with this situation and the way the game scores surrenders, and I don't think it's fair to them.

[H]

So, to be clear when you surrender you still get points for causing casualties. The game does *not* give up every point to the victor. What they get is all the objectives and are considered to have caused 100% causalities to the surrendering side. Their own casualties still count towards any friendly threshold or points for the surrendering side. In this case there were precious few casualties on the victor's side, hence the score.

If the battle had gone on longer and his opponent had some how managed to cause some causalities then they would have had more points but from the sounds of it @iluvmy88 did really well and his opponent did poorly.

This kind of tournament is going to have growing pains and lets face it we have not run many tournaments here so lets consider the feedback we want to give towards the process but not try and diminish a particular game result. Whether that was intended or not I suggest we take it as unintentional and move on. At the end I am sure Raz would like to have feedback on the tournament design and a discussion about surrendering would certainly be warranted at that time. For now we all knew the rules going in and we should play this out.

That's not accurate - he had one casualty and the loser got no points for it, unless his one casualty didn't have any points attached to it - look at my post about opening up the game and immediately surrendering.... the same number of points were awarded to the winner, 1350 - so if what you are saying is correct - why didn't the loser get any points - not trying to be argumentative here - just trying to understand how the game really scores surrenders

[H]

@Raz

I hope all this nonsense does not discourage you to run more tourneys such as this. I'm having a great time with my playing partner. Life is a learning experience and it is hard to foresee things like this. As Yoda would say "the force was cloudy on this one"

So far this issue only affects group 1 but it is good to talk and discuss so that we learn. I urge all who are still playing to not use the surrender option please.

Raz - I agree with Floki here - thanks so much for running the tourney. I hope all my posts aren't driving you nuts, please know that I've made my point and am done with the topic. What's ironic in all this is that when I was reading the rules it NEVER occurred to me that anyone would surrender in a points based tourney - live and learn huh?

[iluvmy88]

the game does not award the opponent points if buddy aid was performed. pg 49 of the combat mission BN manual

by getting screwed i am refering to the fact that if surrender is not allowed and the winner has no control over his opponent surredering then the winner would be found to have broken a rule and the game invalidated when he did nothing wrong himself. then we are back to the same situation. how do you calculate points?

[A Canadian Cat]

That's not accurate - he had one casualty and the loser got no points for it, unless his one casualty didn't have any points attached to it - look at my post about opening up the game and immediately surrendering.... the same number of points were awarded to the winner, 1350 - so if what you are saying is correct - why didn't the loser get any points - not trying to be argumentative here - just trying to understand how the game really scores surrenders

OK I'll take it as you intended :) For the record I have not looked at the actual scoring setup in the scenario you guys are playing, I am talking general terms here about the game. Units can be grouped and assigned points to the enemy for destroying. So, it is possible that some units earn the enemy no points and other groups score more. However it is also true that if there is 100 points and 100 infantry in the group for those points that one solider is worth one point. In the case where there are 100 points for 300 soldiers then each soldier is worth 1/3 of a point. Then there is the factor of WIA vs KIA. I think it is entirely possible for a single casualty to not register any points for the opponent. I can assure you that it is the game engine's intention to allow the surrendering side to still have their score for causing casualties and preserving their ammo.

[A Canadian Cat]

What's ironic in all this is that when I was reading the rules it NEVER occurred to me that anyone would surrender in a points based tourney - live and learn huh?

Yeah me neither, I expressed entirely different concerns to Raz at the start of this. I personally would fight to the last man in a tournament like this where the points matter so much. Even a handful of points could help later.